CameronBornAndBred
Well-known member
I can say without a doubt that they do. After college I had a pizza delivery job that I made like 15K from. I was audited. (And had to pay the bastards 500 bucks because my employer did their filing wrong.)
Name, Image, Likeness
- Thread starter -jk
- Start date
Mike Petrik
Member
Retired tax lawyer here. All returns are audited, albeit imperfectly, via computer matching software that compares items reported on the tax return with items reported on information returns (e.g., forms 1099 and W-2) associated with that tax return's SSN or TIN. Very few tax returns are subject to human desk audits, however, and those are almost exclusively of high-income earners. especially with atypically large deductions. If you were subject to a desk audit, you were extraordinarily unlucky.
CameronBornAndBred
Well-known member
This was back in '96. Software may still have been involved, but less likely than it is today.
Mike Petrik
Member
Not necessarily. The IRS has been relying chiefly on computer matching programs at least since the 1980s. Unfortunately, in many cases they continue to use imperfectly updated versions of some of that same now rather ancient software, which is why IRS errors are not uncommon. My then 92–93-year-old-dad had a two-year long battle with the IRS over his IRA RMD computation, in which he eventually prevailed. The IRS software simply had not been updated to take into account a 10-year-old law change that addressed a rather unusual investment circumstance. But most of the time the matching programs simply catch honest return preparation errors.
Last edited:
CrazyNotCrazie
Member
I'm far from rich. And chasing after me for $2k when there are many people getting away with much worse is not a wise use of resources (which I believe have been greatly reduced in the past few days). I have no problem paying what I owe and immediately wrote a check for the amount (plus the penalties). My deduction for the same item was greater than the prior year, but not by a material amount that would should have set off triggers.
Kudos to them for finding this. But it is not the ideal use of resources. I also think that of all agencies to cut, IRS is pretty low on the list as it largely pays for itself, but that will take us down a path I know we are not supposed to go down here.
Not sure how we even got to this in a thread about NIL...
I read that as "people with both lawyers and accountants".
CameronBornAndBred
Well-known member
This is humorous in its own way. Remember 5 years ago when athletes left school early to earn that money?
Nowadays, well, to quote Willy Wonka... "Strike that, reverse it".
It makes total sense, too. Why would an athlete that's not headed to the pros want to graduate when they are making more $ staying in school?
www.wralsportsfan.com
Nowadays, well, to quote Willy Wonka... "Strike that, reverse it".
It makes total sense, too. Why would an athlete that's not headed to the pros want to graduate when they are making more $ staying in school?
NC State football player, seeking to play another year, sues NCAA in latest eligibility challenge :: WRALSportsFan.com
NC State cornerback Corey Coley Jr. filed a federal lawsuit seeking a fifth year of eligibility.
www.wralsportsfan.com
SkyBrickey
Member
Interesting write up from SI on the changing landscape of CBB NIL.
Notably he says that the leading CBB programs will be spending $3.5-4M next season under the new $20.5M revenue share "cap". I have no idea what his source is for this. Sounds low to me.
If this cap holds (a big if), how will that affect Duke? Here's the argument it would be positive. Outside of money, we are the most attractive destination for HS recruits and portal transfers. So if you level the playing field on money, we win.
The second argument is that these kids can still get legit endorsement deals. Nike, Gatorade, etc. with Rachel and the Duke brand, we should be at the very top in maximizing endorsement deals.
www.si.com
Notably he says that the leading CBB programs will be spending $3.5-4M next season under the new $20.5M revenue share "cap". I have no idea what his source is for this. Sounds low to me.
If this cap holds (a big if), how will that affect Duke? Here's the argument it would be positive. Outside of money, we are the most attractive destination for HS recruits and portal transfers. So if you level the playing field on money, we win.
The second argument is that these kids can still get legit endorsement deals. Nike, Gatorade, etc. with Rachel and the Duke brand, we should be at the very top in maximizing endorsement deals.
2025 Will Be Most Important College Basketball Transfer Portal Yet
Last offseason, I wrote extensively about the transfer portal and its impacts on college basketball. With many players who had second-round talent forgoing ear
CameronBornAndBred
Well-known member
This is trippy. Along with NIL, the "GM" position is becoming the norm on campus these days. Check out who Davidson made a deal with.
www.espn.com
Curry accepts asst. GM role for Davidson hoops
Warriors star Stephen Curry has accepted a role with his alma mater Davidson College as an assistant general manager for the basketball programs.
mo.st.dukie
Member
Damn, that's a brilliant idea.
NYBri
Member
It won't work with Duke. There are no former Duke players doing well in professional basketball. Oh....wait....This is trippy. Along with NIL, the "GM" position is becoming the norm on campus these days. Check out who Davidson made a deal with.
Curry accepts asst. GM role for Davidson hoops
Warriors star Stephen Curry has accepted a role with his alma mater Davidson College as an assistant general manager for the basketball programs.
TKG
Member
But there are plenty of Holes looking for work in basketball, so perhaps Carolina could us the month of March to reconsider their recent hire. They should have plenty of free time.
SkyBrickey
Member
Interesting article on NIL and ACC basketball. The writer makes the case that ACC basketball should come out ahead under this new $20.5M revenue share model vs the current state of play.
The big wildcard in this is what will the collectives be able to do going forward. If the pay-for-play model is truly neutered, that could be a good thing for Duke. The Rachel Baker sponsorship deals would be a nice competitive advantage. But if we are playing by the rules on pay-for-play while other schools are breaking the rules, then it might not work out in our favor. I'm not sure how any teams are making firm NIL offers with this much uncertainty.
From the article:
While the collectives will still work to offer athletes money beyond the cap in the years ahead, they could -- in theory -- be restricted due to fair market value rules on NIL deals. While a player can collect $100,000 in a deal after two promotional appearances in the current landscape, the NCAA intends to cut down on pay-for-play transactions outside the revenue-sharing mechanism. How effective the NCAA will be in that mission remains to be seen, though, as it has failed to effectively monitor NIL transactions and deals over the first four years of NIL legislation.
"If there are fair market value checks and the enforcement entity has teeth," Lawrence said, "then providing athletes significant dollars outside of the cap is going to be difficult."
www.espn.com
The big wildcard in this is what will the collectives be able to do going forward. If the pay-for-play model is truly neutered, that could be a good thing for Duke. The Rachel Baker sponsorship deals would be a nice competitive advantage. But if we are playing by the rules on pay-for-play while other schools are breaking the rules, then it might not work out in our favor. I'm not sure how any teams are making firm NIL offers with this much uncertainty.
From the article:
While the collectives will still work to offer athletes money beyond the cap in the years ahead, they could -- in theory -- be restricted due to fair market value rules on NIL deals. While a player can collect $100,000 in a deal after two promotional appearances in the current landscape, the NCAA intends to cut down on pay-for-play transactions outside the revenue-sharing mechanism. How effective the NCAA will be in that mission remains to be seen, though, as it has failed to effectively monitor NIL transactions and deals over the first four years of NIL legislation.
"If there are fair market value checks and the enforcement entity has teeth," Lawrence said, "then providing athletes significant dollars outside of the cap is going to be difficult."
The ACC is on track for its fewest men's NCAA tournament bids in 25 years -- what's next?
The storied college basketball conference is in flux, but it's banking on an injection of money and young wave of coaches to carry it into this new era.
The cat is already out of the bag on "pay for play." You can't reasonably legislate which deals are legit or not at this point unless congress passes a new law. In fact, one of the concerns on the plaintiff side on the House case on the initial agreement was potentially reducing outside NIL monies to athletes and the judge made them go to the drawing board on that completely. NCAA athlete representation will most definitely NOT take a potential restriction on pay for play NIL without a fight.Interesting article on NIL and ACC basketball. The writer makes the case that ACC basketball should come out ahead under this new $20.5M revenue share model vs the current state of play.
The big wildcard in this is what will the collectives be able to do going forward. If the pay-for-play model is truly neutered, that could be a good thing for Duke. The Rachel Baker sponsorship deals would be a nice competitive advantage. But if we are playing by the rules on pay-for-play while other schools are breaking the rules, then it might not work out in our favor. I'm not sure how any teams are making firm NIL offers with this much uncertainty.
From the article:
While the collectives will still work to offer athletes money beyond the cap in the years ahead, they could -- in theory -- be restricted due to fair market value rules on NIL deals. While a player can collect $100,000 in a deal after two promotional appearances in the current landscape, the NCAA intends to cut down on pay-for-play transactions outside the revenue-sharing mechanism. How effective the NCAA will be in that mission remains to be seen, though, as it has failed to effectively monitor NIL transactions and deals over the first four years of NIL legislation.
"If there are fair market value checks and the enforcement entity has teeth," Lawrence said, "then providing athletes significant dollars outside of the cap is going to be difficult."
The ACC is on track for its fewest men's NCAA tournament bids in 25 years -- what's next?
The storied college basketball conference is in flux, but it's banking on an injection of money and young wave of coaches to carry it into this new era.
SkyBrickey
Member
It's happening now then because the P4 conferences have announced that they've hired Deloitte to monitor and ensure that all NIL deals are fair market value sponsorship deals. I agree it will likely be tied up in the courts. What a mess.
Owen Meany
Member
This is what I envisioned when NIL was made permissible. Great for Cooper, great for Duke.
Owen Meany
Member
And another, posted again by Zion O on X, this time with McCain, Isaiah, Sion and Caleb. Again, this is what I envisioned being NIL. If the new $20 million revenue sharing actually limits NIL to true NIL as some are suggesting, this would be a boon for Duke. Basketball players can leverage the Duke brand to an extent few, if any, schools could match.
Actually it looks like he linked to @DukeTWTClips
Actually it looks like he linked to @DukeTWTClips
Last edited:
Interesting that they tout the genius of Pitino for only going after transfers at St John’s—he says he’s eschewing all freshman recruits in favor of older guys. The article contrasts him with “less successful” coaches like Jerome Tang and Danny Sprinkle, who also extensively use the portal, don’t have as much money to spend, and haven’t had great years this year (well, they’ve personally had excellent years financially, but their teams haven’t).Interesting write up from SI on the changing landscape of CBB NIL.
Notably he says that the leading CBB programs will be spending $3.5-4M next season under the new $20.5M revenue share "cap". I have no idea what his source is for this. Sounds low to me.
If this cap holds (a big if), how will that affect Duke? Here's the argument it would be positive. Outside of money, we are the most attractive destination for HS recruits and portal transfers. So if you level the playing field on money, we win.
The second argument is that these kids can still get legit endorsement deals. Nike, Gatorade, etc. with Rachel and the Duke brand, we should be at the very top in maximizing endorsement deals.
2025 Will Be Most Important College Basketball Transfer Portal Yet
Last offseason, I wrote extensively about the transfer portal and its impacts on college basketball. With many players who had second-round talent forgoing ear
Seems to me that Tang and Sprinkle were considered geniuses at the new college basketball only last year. They’ve had a similar sort of success enjoyed by Larrañaga or Keatts or Hubert Davis, whose one-year choices are sometimes great and sometimes not. The jury’s out on Danny Hurley, but he’s not being discussed as a bullet-proof genius anymore, even if Hurley is the best f**ing coach in the sport.
Maybe this unevenness has always been the case, but the ups and downs seem turbocharged, all of which makes Scheyer’s three-year consistency all the more impressive.
Owen Meany
Member
Can't provide a link since this came from s notification on my phone that opened into Kon K's account(even though I don't have an account). He announced he's endorsing Celcius Energy Drink. It seems like these endorsement deals are all ramping up for the tournament.